A family day out could turn out to be a disaster where an accident occurs causing injury and possibly a hospital stay. Councils around the country provide playgrounds and while every foreseeable precaution is made to avoid accidents, they still occur. Though, not every accident is necessarily the fault of the council. As in all personal injury cases, negligence must be proved. Councils are also responsible for uneven concrete footpaths. These can be particularly dangerous for running children or those with impaired eyesight or elderly. But again, the mere fact of an accident is not evidence of fault. The injured party must prove that the council were negligent in the repair or condition of the footpath which caused the accident. A common defence by a council is that the injured party contributed to the accident. Take for instance, a person texting on their mobile phone, not noticing an uneven slab of concrete, and tripping over causing them injury. While the council might be responsible for the poor maintenance or repair of the footpath, it would be reasonable for the council to state that the individual was not looking where they were walking and thus contributed to the fall. Common Kinds of Public Area Accidents Falls from Heights. Equipment Malfunction Slip and Trip Incidents. Collisions. Entanglement Environmental Hazards Animal Attacks. Amusement Parks (Non-Public Owned) Accidents that occur here are known as Public Liability Accidents and the owners of the park would have public liability accident insurance to cover these events. The owners of the amusement park have a legal responsibility to provide a duty of care to everybody using their facilities. The Law The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1995 is the governing law and under EU law the European Communities (Machinery) Regulations 2008 . Duty of Care The duty of care applies not just to paying customers but also those who work there. The additional range of regulations include: Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 The Health and Safety at Work Act 2005 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2016 Health and Safety Regulations 1996 Work at Height Regulations 2005 A duty of care can be defined as a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to others. So, what amounts to reasonably foreseeable? If the accident could have been foreseen then it falls within this definition but if the accident’s foreseeability was remote, it does not. Your solicitor will advise you on the merits of your case but do not delay in taking action as there is a time limit of two years within which to commence proceedings.

Commercial leases of shops or offices usually have a term of 10 to 20 years. The lease can be renewed on expiry of the term of 20 years; in fact, a short lease of five years usually confers this right to renewal. A ‘break’ clause is nearly always included in leases longer than 10 to 15 years. They allow the tenant or landlord to break the lease either on the third or fifth year of the tenancy and that will formally end the lease agreement between the parties. The tenant must have his rent and other payments up to date. He must also serve a formal notice on the landlord to indicate that he wants to break or sever the agreement. He must give plenty of notice to the landlord so the landlord will have time to relet the property. Rent reviews are always included in these leases and following a rent review exercise, the rent can remain the same or be revised upwards or downwards depending on the market rent for similar properties. An unfair condition that the new market rent can never be lower than the existing rent has been abolished now for several years. Typically a limited company will execute the lease but, if so, the landlord may well ask for a rent guarantee from the company directors are other parties. FRI leases means Full Repairing and Insuring obligations fall on the tenant. Stand-alone units, such as a factory, will usually see the tenant insuring the whole property to include its roof and structure. However, stores within shopping centres are a little more complex and here the tenant should insist on insuring only the internal part of his unit and not the external or structural part which will be far too expensive to repair. Rent is usually invoiced on a quarterly or monthly basis. Unfortunately, the tenant is also obliged to pay a service charge to cover security, public lighting, landscaping, maintenance, and management of the communal areas. In addition, of course there will also be rates and utility bills. landlords but their consent is needed and they will ask for any plans or drawings in this regard. Change of use may also be allowed but could require planning permission. Subletting or selling on the lease. Both require landlord’s consent, but this cannot be unreasonably withheld. Landlords will allow subletting if the proposed new occupant is a sound business person and undertakes to pay the rent direct to the landlord. In a similar fashion, a landlord will allow the lease to be sold on or assigned to a new person, but again his consent is required and he is entitled to see bank and trade references for the new occupant who will become, in effect, his new tenant.

On the death of a loved one, formalities take place to distribute the assets of the deceased, this is the administration of their estate. Where there is a Will, then it is comparatively straight forward. The Will sets out how the assets of the deceased are to be distributed but where the Will cannot be found, it creates issues. A person may intentionally destroy a Will with the intention of replacing it or it might genuinely be lost. It is advisable to store a Will in a place where others can easily find it. A court can also disregard a will if it is damaged beyond recognition. Whether lost or damaged beyond recognition, this can throw up serious legal implications. In these circumstances, contact your solicitor immediately. The general rule is that if the original Will of the deceased cannot be found, there is a presumption that the person who made the Will deliberately destroyed it with the intention to revoke it. It could be that this was to enable the person to write a new Will but evidence of that would need to be provided. Wills can be lost for a variety reasons, by the hand of its creator, genuinely lost, bad storage, damaged or lost by a third party or relative. In some cases where it can be established to the satisfaction of a judge, that the Will was destroyed or lost due to circumstances beyond the control of the testator, a court may permit a copy or even, in some cases, secondary evidence of its contents to be admitted into probate. How to Prove the Existence of a Lost or Destroyed Will Where a party is seeking to prove the existence of the original Will that was lost or destroyed, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to establish its validity. The evidence must be clear, establishing that: The Will was executed correctly. The testator had not intended to revoke it. A true and accurate copy of the Will exists. Where there is no copy, the Will’s contents can be verified with evidence. In this instance the burden of proof is very high. Samples of Supporting Evidence A court must be satisfied that any evidence produced must show what the clear intention of the testator was. Samples are: A signed duplicate copy would be the best proof. An unsigned draft prepared by a solicitor. Witnesses who read or knew the contents of the Will, supporting evidence would most likely be required here. A court will be slow to grant probate unless the evidence is very clear and if the evidence does not meet the threshold of proof, the rules of intestacy will apply, that is, the distribution of the deceased's assets will be treated as if the testator died without making a Will. These situations can become quite complex, so consult your solicitor if there are any uncertainties concerning the Will of your loved one.

Early diagnosis is vital in treating any medical complaint. Regrettably, it can happen that a GP doctor does not see the early signs which can lead to a late diagnosis of the medical condition. A late diagnosis can create further medical issues for the patient because of the delay in identifying and treating the initial problem. In an ideal world this should not happen, but it does. The longer the medical condition is not identified the greater the risk to the patient, and this could, in some cases, be a matter of life or death. Where this occurs and the patient or next-of-kin sues the GP for medical negligence, in order to succeed, it must be proven that the GP was negligent in their treatment of the patient. If the GP did everything that would be expected of a reasonably competent doctor in treating the patient, then a negligence claim will fail. The question of delay will be examined to determine if the GP acted in accordance with the standard of care that any competent GP would give. If it shown that the GP fell below that standard of care, then negligence can be established. So was the delay in diagnosis: As a result of an act or omission of the GP or Was the act or omission caused by the hospital (¬t the GP) A court will look at the actions taken by the GP, what, if any, scans, and other procedures the patient was sent for and what interpretation was made from the results. Your solicitor will guide you through the process and determine who the correct defendant should be. Failure to Refer to a Specialist. Failure to refer in medical negligence occurs when a doctor breaches their duty of care by not referring a patient, in a timely manner, to a specialist or for necessary testing, causing injury or a worsened prognosis. The delay can add to the patient’s distress, suffering and possibly incur additional medical problems. Examples Where a GP fails to refer a patient to a consultant, hospital emergency department or fails to seek blood tests or other investigatory procedures. Time Limits In general, there is a two-year limit to start legal proceedings. There are some exceptions to this, and your solicitor will determine whether this applies to your case. Medical Negligence is a complex area so be sure to make early contact with your solicitor to assess the merits of your case.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is generally not legally binding. It is considered a formal agreement/informal? outlining the intent, roles, and objectives of parties involved in a collaboration, rather than a legally enforceable contract. It acts as a "gentlemen's agreement" or a step toward a future formal contract. It normally is followed by a formal written enforceable contract. What are MOUs Used for? After parties meet and discuss a future project or business venture, they may agree to put in writing their initial thoughts discussed in negotiations which the parties agree on. This can be useful where the proposed project or business is some time away from execution, so a MOU sets out the parties’ common agreement without creating any legal obligations. As the parties’ work on the project or business to be put into action, a long-form agreement follows and is advisable. Leaving it too long could create issues where one party is not performing so leaving the other party with no legal address to resolve the position. Progressing from a MOU to long-form contract is particularly important where intellectual property is concerned. For instance, in the film business, one party might bring a concept for a film to another party who expresses interest in developing the concept to film. Here the parties can sign an MOU with the common aim to make the film. But if the long-form contract is delayed and disagreement breaks out between the parties, the ownership of the IP in the original concept can become an issue of some importance. Contents for a Valid MOU It is best that a solicitor is engaged to ensure the MOU is well drafted and the common goals are met. A common MOU should ideally contain the following clauses: An Introduction: this sets out the purpose of the MOU and identifies the parties to it. Objectives and Goals: This gives more details of the project and the objectives to be achieved. Roles and Responsibilities: This should set out clearly the roles and responsibilities (if any) of the parties. Duration: It is not absolutely necessary to set a deadline for the duration of the MOU, but some projects would require it. Confidentiality: This is important, it would be in the interests of all the parties that their MOU should be confidential. Non-Disclosure: Parties would be wise to agree to this. Disclosure should only be allowed with the consent of the other parties to the MOU. While MOUs are not legally enforceable, a breach of the non-disclosure clause could give rise to a breach of confidence claim. Governing law: this should be included where parties reside in different countries. Signatures of the parties: each party should sign the MOU. Date: the MOU should be dated. Always take advice from your solicitor before signing any documents.

Dental negligence claims for treatment abroad, such as crowns, implants, or veneers, can be pursued, though they are complex. Claims in Ireland must generally be initiated within two years of the treatment or from when you became aware of the injury. Compensation can cover physical pain, corrective treatments, loss of earnings, and travel costs. Key Aspects of International Dental Negligence Claims: Time Limit (Statute of Limitations): You typically have 2 years from the date of the injury or the "date of knowledge" (when you realised the treatment was negligent) to bring a claim. Liability Complexity: If you were referred by an Irish agency, the claim may be pursued against them in Ireland. Otherwise, legal action may need to be taken in the country where the treatment occurred, for example, Turkey. Your solicitor will advise here as it might be necessary to sue both the Irish agency and the dental professional abroad together. Common Claims: Claims often involve nerve damage, infection, poorly fitted crowns/bridges, broken instruments left in canals, and improper implant placement. Damages: You can seek compensation for:  A) General Damages: Pain and suffering. B) Special Damages: Cost of corrective treatment, remedial work, and travel expenses. What to Do: Consult a Solicitor: Engage a solicitor experienced in medical negligence to determine whether you have a case and advise on the options. Seek Independent Dental Opinion: Consult a dentist in Ireland to provide an expert opinion on the damage. Gather Evidence: Collect records, X-rays, contracts, and any costs incurred by you from the trip abroad to get the dental treatment. If your trip abroad contained a part holiday you would need to distinguish the actual cost associated with the holiday from the expenses. the dental expenses Potential Complications: Jurisdiction Issues: Determining if the case can be heard in Irish courts. Aftercare Issues: Difficulty obtaining records from the foreign clinic. All records should be supplied but sometimes these can be delayed but your solicitor will endeavour to speed these up. Language Barriers: Understanding informed consent documentation. Consent should be clearly understood for the treatment to be received and any failure by the dental profession to obtain this irrespective of language barriers falls on the dental professional. The Package Holiday and Travel Trade Act, 1995 The Package Holidays and Travel Trade Act 1995 is the primary legislation in Ireland that protects consumers who book package holidays and this can include the protection of consumer rights for receiving dental services abroad. It transposed EU Directive 90/314/EEC into Irish law, ensuring that travel organisers are legally responsible for the proper performance of the services they sell. While the Act was brought in for consumer protection, there are a number of sections that apply in this Act for negligent dental service carried out abroad, namely: A)Section 11: Liability for defective brochures B)Section 12: Information to be provided before contract is made. C)Section 14: Essential terms of contract D)Section 19: Significance failure of performance Your solicitor will advise on whether a claim falls with the 1995 Act and if so, will include that in a claim. As stated at the outset, suing for services carried out abroad can be complex and time consuming so consult your solicitor early for advice on how to proceed.

The plaintiff issued defamatory proceedings in August 2023 regarding an allegedly defamatory statement by the second-named defendant, seeking damages (including aggravated and punitive damages) for defamation in respect of a phone conversation in July 2023. There had been a previous incident in August 2021 involving a series of emails sent by first-named defendant to the CEO and Head of Fundraising at the Jack and Jill Foundation. The plaintiff had been a voluntary board member of the Jack and Jill Foundation since 2018. The plaintiff applied to the court pursuant to section 11(2) (c) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 (as amended) to extend the time from one-year to enable the plaintiff to bring in the earlier allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff explained in her application that she delayed in issuing proceedings as she did not want to cause trouble for the charity when it was struggling due to issues caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. She also said that home-schooling her three young children during the pandemic had the result that the statements made by the defendants did not receive the consideration they perhaps deserved. Additionally, another question arose from the plaintiff’s application being, as to whether or not in the event that the application was unsuccessful, the plaintiff would seek to rely on the August 2021 publications in support of the plea that the publication in July 2023 was made maliciously. The High Court judge considered the case law for extending the time limit. In Quinn v Reserve Defence Force Representative Association [2018] IEHC 684 the statutory test was set out. The judge was cognisant that the jurisdiction to extent time in defamation cases only applied in exceptional cases. In the Quinn case it was observed that the court is required “to carry out a qualitive assessment of the reason or reasons proffered for the delay. This involves a consideration of the quality and nature of the reason or reasons advanced and a weighing of the respective prejudices.” In another case, he noted Joyce v Mayo Travellers Support Group [2023] IEHC 84 as authority to the effect that in considering the nature of the case, the court should assume that the plaintiff will be successful. The judge was not satisfied that the reasons given by the plaintiff were particularly cogent or persuasive, finding that “even on their own terms either separately or together or when considered in the round, they are unimpressive reasons”. The judge also stated that he was unconvinced that the plaintiff suffered a type of psychological paralysis by virtue of the August 2021 allegedly defamatory statements and that only by July 2023 had the plaintiff recovered her courage enough to issue proceedings. The judge also considered whether because of delay by the plaintiff whether such evidence was available. He raised this because the second defendant claimed that he could not remember the phone call made in August 2021, and the judge found that entirely plausible. Another consideration the court had to factor in was whether it was in the interests of justice in extending the time and whether if refused would that prejudice the plaintiff. Decision The prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the refusal of the application would not significantly outweigh that of the defendants should time be extended in circumstances where the defendants would be obliged “to defend a claim concerning publications in August 2021 issued well out of time and the detail of which was only notified to them in 2024”. Accordingly, the High Court refused the application to extend the time. Catherine Logan v Peter Wilson and David Godwin [2025] IEHC 284.

A Shareholders' Agreement is a private, legally binding contract among a company’s shareholders, designed to regulate management, protect interests, and govern share transfers beyond the scope of the company constitution. In the event of future disputes among shareholders, reference will be made to the providing of this Agreement. Purpose The purpose of having a shareholder’s agreement is: a)It provides a formula to deal with any disputes among shareholders. b)It protects minority shareholders. c)It sets out how shares are sold, transferred, or purchased. This can enable existing shareholders to decide who can buy shares in the company. d)Voting rights can be set out. e)Matters dealing with the management of the company can be included. f)Selling shares: rules can be provided for g)Confidentiality. h)Composition of Board members. In start-up companies where there will likely be many shareholders coming in at different stages, a shareholder’s agreement is very important. The Risk of Not Having a Shareholders’ Agreement A dispute among shareholders can be disruptive to the operation of a business. Where is cannot be resolved internally. Reference can be made to the governing law, The Companies Act, 2014 but that invariable will involve the waring side to bring in solicitors, and it could end up in court, leaving for a judge to decide. That can involve great expense and a huge distraction to the running of the business. Minority shareholders might have little say in the running of the business and might feel isolated. It can be the case that some family run businesses do not see the need for this but as seen from some high-profile business families, when things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong without a shareholders agreement. Timing Ideally when a company is formed, a shareholders agreement should be put in place. When forming a company, a shareholder’s agreement is wise to include. Your solicitor will guide you on this.

The plaintiff worked as a dental assistant for the defendant from 2007 until the date of her accident on 20 June 2016. In the afternoon of the day of the accident, she was carrying out hoovering on a flight of stairs in the defendant’s clinic when she stepped on the hose of the vacuum cleaner, lost her balance, stumbled, fell, and caused an injury to her right ankle. The clinic was located in a building where patients enter through doors that are accessed by using external steps up to the entrance doors, which lead onto a return landing between a short flight of stairs leading up to the reception and treatment room, or leading down the stairs to the waiting room area in the basement The plaintiff produced to the court, photographs of the area where the accident happened. It was part of the plaintiff’s duties to carry our light domestic chores during quiet periods of the clinic. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff started hoovering at the bottom of the staircase, but she had to stop occasionally to check if the phone was ringing. Prior to her accident, she had stopped approximately six times to ascend the stairs to check the phone. On the last of these occasions, on descending stairs to return to the hoover, the arm of the hoover had moved which she did not notice causing her to trip and fall. The plaintiff continued to work but on leaving her colleague noticed her limping and the plaintiff explained what had happened. The plaintiff alleged that her work colleague told her not to complain to their employer as it would only make him annoyed. In evidence her work colleague hotly disputed this conversation. In cross examination, the plaintiff acknowledged that she knew exactly she had left the hoover on the staircase but stated that she was not aware that that the steel arm leading from the nozzle of the hoover, which had been resting against the banister, had fallen over while she had been upstairs checking the phone. She also stated that she had been blinded by strong sunlight coming in from the entrance doors which reached the staircase area. The plaintiff acknowledged that there was CCTV coverage of the area where the accident occurred and was aware that after one month the tape would be cleared. She denied that her solicitor’s claim letter was delayed to pass the one-month period. Questions were put to the plaintiff that several medical attendances made no mention of her stumbling and falling on a hose of a hoover at her place of work. The plaintiff claimed she had so informed the doctors at A&E. It was put to the plaintiff that in a note taken on 23 June 2016, it had been noted that the plaintiff had come for review and had twisted her ankle four days previously and was unable to bear weight on it, or to walk. There was no mention in that note of any hoover. It was put to her that in a further note dated 27 June 2016, the history recorded noted that she had twisted her ankle eight days previously, but again there was no reference to any hoover. The plaintiff stated that she could not explain the omission of those details. She stated that she had definitely told the medical personnel in A&E about the circumstances of the accident when she had first visited it. The plaintiff accepted that she had sent a text to the defendant which stated that she would not be returning to work, as she knew that she could not stand for any prolonged period. She accepted that when she saw Dr. Grant on 23 September 2016, it had been noted that she was “starting new job next week”. The plaintiff stated that that job would not have required her to be standing or walking for the entire day. The plaintiff called supporting evidence by an engineer which pointed out the unsuitability of the area for safe cleaning to be carried out. The defence called the work colleague of the plaintiff who mentioned the practise of cleaning the area during quiet spells. On being asked about what the plaintiff said when they were leaving work that day. The witness asked the plaintiff why the plaintiff was limping. She told the court that the plaintiff said it was from new shoes. She denied saying to the plaintiff not to mention the accident to the employer. The defendant told the court that the first time he was informed by the plaintiff of her injury allegedly caused by the hoover, was in a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor in April 2018. He said the CCTV was long gone from their system. He accepted that when vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs, it was necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover from time to time and to check the phone. He denied that it was an unsafe place to work. Engineering evidence was given on behalf of the defendant who had carried out a joint inspection of the clinic with the plaintiff’s engineer. He had also carried out a subsequent inspection on his own on 20th November 2025, then he took a further set of photographs showing the upper flight of stairs and the view from the reception area looking down towards that flight of stairs. The engineer stated that in his opinion the system of work that had been in operation at the time of the accident was not an unsafe system. Decision  On reviewing the evidence, the judge said that this was a very unfortunate accident – but that all it was, an accident. The judge did not accept that the workplace was unsafe. He said that under the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as amended, an employer is only required to take reasonable steps to prevent an accident that is foreseeable. Consequently, the judge found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant as either the employer of the plaintiff, or as occupier of the premises, in relation to the circumstances of the accident as given in evidence by the plaintiff. The plaintiff case was dismissed. Sharon Walsh v Juniper Orthodontics Ltd High Court [2026] IEHC 99]